Expanding Coaches

[MrSmooth]

That's a bit of a narrow look at it in my opinion. As you take out personalities and make vast assumptions without looking into each situation. That didn't look into personalities, what goes on behind closed doors, what players think about their instruction, what management & ownership think of coaching instruction.

So while that is a fine observation to make a lot more goes into it than that.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by MrSmooth

That's a bit of a narrow look at it in my opinion. As you take out personalities and make vast assumptions without looking into each situation. That didn't look into personalities, what goes on behind closed doors, what players think about their instruction, what management & ownership think of coaching instruction

Now you only need to quantify how much personality adds or detracts from player performance. This whole area is, for better or worse, completely ephemeral. There isn't, nor is there likely to be, any hard data upon which any sort of meaningful statistical model can be built. Does a good coach add 1% or 10% to a player's development and/or performance? How can anyone know?

What this means is that coaches in the game are essentially window dressing. There's nothing wrong with that, window dressing elements can still be engaging and fun to play.

I always cite this example. The old PC game Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space had a crew compatibility rating when you were putting together crews for a mission. You could see how well they got along with each other, and you could try other combinations of personnel to arrive at a crew that was both getting along great and with the best skills. Only here's the thing: the game's developer said that the compatibility factor made no difference to the outcome of the mission. The rationale was, no matter whether the crew got along or not, they were professionals, and would do their job to the best of their abilities. The developer put in the compatibility aspect because he knew the users of the game would think it meaningful, and would enjoy spending time in the challenge of trying to assemble the perfect crew of happy and skilled astronauts. In other words, the compatibility aspect was window dressing. Engrossing, challenging, and fun window dressing, but ultimately not of significance since it was the skill of the astronauts (and the reliability of the hardware) that mattered to the outcome of the mission.

I see coaches in OOTP as being similar to crew compatibility in BARIS. It can feel important, it can be fun to assemble that great roster of coaches who get along with everyone, raise the morale of the club, and seem to have good skills in helping players, but ultimately, their impact on the day-to-day performance of the player is minimal at best.

[MrSmooth]

There's equally no stats to suggest otherwise, yet there is data that suggest personality conflicts and the influences of others above you effect how individuals perform in other jobs.

So it's hard to simply agree it is window dressing. The current format of not knowing the exact effect of coaches I want to remain so this debate can continue as that's how is should be.

I make the game as hard as possible, which is why I'd like to have more scouts again as well as good scouts can also have different opinions about players.

What exactly goes into success day in and day out in reality is a complicated mix that none of us would be able to effectively state with any real accuracy. I'd just prefer that coaching have an effect in that. How much? Enough that it does matter. Which doesn't mean an astronomical effect.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by MrSmooth

There's equally no stats to suggest otherwise...

That's arguing a negative. Your claim, your burden of proof. If you wish coaches to have some sort of meaningful impact on player morale which in turn has an effect on their performance, or that coaches can notably improve a player's performance beyond what it would have been with another coach or no coach at all, it is up to you to provide some evidence for it.

Especially since, to do the job best and most realistically, OOTP would need solid real-world numbers upon which to base its code.

Originally Posted by MrSmooth

What exactly goes into success day in and day out in reality is a complicated mix that none of us would be able to effectively state with any real accuracy.

In a game that we expect to produce realistic numbers based on solid real-world data, just "making stuff up" would seem to be the last resort unless a really compelling case can be made.

Originally Posted by MrSmooth

I'd just prefer that coaching have an effect in that. How much? Enough that it does matter.

And what is the threshold for "it does matter"? A 1% improvement? 2%? 5%? 25%? You begin to see the problem I trust.

[MrSmooth]

Do we know how much effect coaching has now? No. We don't need to know, Markus has done good thus far, so I trust him with choosing that. So, that's honestly up to him and his team. If it produces realistic numbers (not sure how that would change) then there should be no issue.

And I'm arguing that your claim has no statistics to back it up either (yet the OOTP team is able to have current coaching work in a realistic manner without the stats you claim, I just want it expanded). I spent 30 minutes today speaking with a friend who played baseball about the effect of coaching he had some positive and negative things to say about how he feel coaching effected his development, and was in strong agreement that it matters.

Never did I say "make stuff up" I laid out exactly how I'd like it to work a mix of personality, coach skill at the various positions, and that mixes with the player ability, personality, and potential. How much? Again, we don't know how much it effects it currently, so that's not really a strong argument here as the OOTP team is very good with this very thing.

The younger a player is the more coaching will effect how close he can come to his ceiling and there's a number of other things it could influence.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by MrSmooth

And I'm arguing that your claim has no statistics to back it up either...

Irrelevant. You want coaches to have more influence over the results. It's your claim, it's your job to provide the evidence to make the case for why it should be done. You're the prosecution, so prove your case!

Originally Posted by MrSmooth

Never did I say "make stuff up"...

If there are no real-numbers to go by then OOTP by necessity must be making them up. (I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, but in a game such as this reference data is of critical importance, especially to get the results right.)

Originally Posted by MrSmooth

How much? Again, we don't know how much it effects it currently...

See above.

Originally Posted by MrSmooth

The younger a player is the more coaching will effect how close he can come to his ceiling and there's a number of other things it could influence.

Still very vague and without any concrete form. That is my main objection, that and the lack of any real-world reference data. (RchW's point is also well-taken. If coaches were really having some discernible, meaningful effect on outcomes, they'd be valued more highly in real life.)